Andy Santana-May balances a tire during auto shop at the Sabin-Schellenberg Professional Technical Center in Portland, January 28, 2016. The center is a district-wide program where students can take part in classes such as engineering, health care, culinary arts and other technical fields.

Andy Santana-May balances a tire during auto shop at the Sabin-Schellenberg Professional Technical Center in Portland, January 28, 2016. The center is a district-wide program where students can take part in classes such as engineering, health care, culinary arts and other technical fields.(Kristyna Wentz-Graff/2016)

Oregon voters enthusiastically endorsed two education measures on the ballot last November, directing legislators to devote millions of dollars to expand career and technical education for high schoolers and provide outdoor school programs for 5thand 6th grade students statewide. Measure 98, the high-school initiative, and Measure 99, the outdoor school initiative, both passed by huge margins - 32 percentage and 34 percentage points respectively.

But what voters approve isn't necessarily what lawmakers do. For the coming biennium, legislators have set aside $170 million for Measure 98 programs, a little more than half of the $300 million that the initiative called for in funding of career and technical education, dropout prevention efforts and expanded college-prep courses for high school students across the state. As for Measure 99, the Legislature is allocating only $24 million of the $44 million envisioned by the initiative to pay for the multi-day outdoor education program for middle-schoolers that several districts have struggled to maintain through fundraising or reserving scarce funds.

There's nothing wrong with legislators' amending what voters hand off to them. Making funding decisions and changing state law, whether it originates from the initiative process or legislative process, are routine functions of the Legislature. Initiatives are blunt instruments as public-policy making goes, rarely including the detail and nuance needed to fairly, legally and effectively administer the programs they create. And an initiative's focus on a single issue contrasts with the broad array of concerns and needs that legislators must balance in making difficult budget decisions.

And many school districts aren't geared up yet to take advantage of the funds for either program. Adding or expanding curriculum in these programs involves far more than just flipping a switch, particularly for career and technical education, even if the funding is available in full.

Still, the amounts allocated for programs identified in both Measure 98 and 99 are not sufficient for what's known to be needed now. Toya Fick, executive director for Stand for Children Oregon, a primary backer of the Measure 98 campaign, called the $170 million "a down payment" but warned that it is far from what will be required to help high school students. That's not hyperbole, considering that some 10,000 students a year drop out of high school in Oregon, which has the third-worst graduation rate in the country.

Similarly, Rex Burkholder, chairman of the Outdoor School for All committee, told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that those tasked with administering the outdoor school fund have tallied the cost of existing outdoor school programs at $30 million, $6 million more than the allocation from legislators.That means the fund won't cover current demand nor can it accommodate additional outdoor school programs from other districts that want to start a program in the next two years.

Elected leaders have bemoaned the budget crisis that they faced this legislative session due in part to the new initiatives. But voters - who cast their ballots amid a sustained economic boom that continues to generate record amounts of tax revenue - aren't to blame. The culprits have been legislators who ignored for years the question of how to pay for Medicaid expansion and who have refused to confront escalating pension and health benefits costs for public employees.

Ultimately, legislators need to think about the reasons two-thirds of voters backed both of these measures. Could Oregon's chronically poor graduation rate have been a motivator to back these two measures? Both invest in strategies known to engage students in their education, open them up to new experiences and career tracks, and keep them connected to high school. Could it be frustration with the paltry offerings that some school districts offer? Or could it be a message to legislators to do a better job of directing Oregonians' tax dollars into student-focused programs instead of employee benefits, which are taking larger and larger shares of school district budgets? Even an 11 percent increase in the K-12 education budget for the coming biennium isn't enough to stave off layoffs in some districts because of those surging personnel costs.

Legislators and voters alike should remind themselves of a simple truth. These measures began as petitions filed by citizens who wanted to put new laws on the books because policymakers weren't addressing the need. They gained traction, attention and, in the end, overwhelming victories that deserve respect, even by those who opposed the initiatives. This is what voters' will looks like, and Oregonians unhappy with the direction of the state should remember how powerful that can be.

- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.

Members of the editorial board are Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, Mark Katches and John Maher.